Social conservatives
voted for Andrew Scheer in the Conservative leadership race. What
they didn't do was push Andrew Scheer over the 50% that's required to
win leadership. The Liberals, media and some Maxime Bernier
supporters want us to believe that social conservatives are the only reason Andrew Scheer won. They're wrong and their math doesn't add
up.

The reason they want us
to believe that social conservatives put Andrew Scheer over the edge
is simple. For the Liberals, the myth is important in painting Andrew
Scheer as a regressive, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-woman leader. For
Bernier supporters, it's just another excuse for losing.

Social conservatives
are an important segment of the Conservative Party, despite being
demonized by members of their own party. They undoubtedly played a
role in the leadership race, and they had every right to. Without
them, the Conservative Party would never win. Aside from some of
their contentious positions on marriage and abortion, social
conservative values are an integral part of conservatism. If you
believe children should abstain from sex and alcohol consumption, you
hold social conservative values. If you believe that child rapists
and murderers should face tougher punishments, congrats, you have
socially conservative values.

Despite making up an
important portion of the party, social conservatives did not push
Andrew Scheer over the edge. To most social conservatives, Andrew
Scheer wasn't even a first choice. Had Scheer not been in the race,
they would have voted for someone else. Had they all unified under
Andrew Scheer in the beginning, Scheer would have held a lead on
earlier ballots. The narrative suggesting that Scheer won because of
social conservatives is overblown. Scheer rallied support from
libertarians, moderates, progressives and social conservatives—the
way a real Conservative leader is supposed to.

It's impossible to win
the Conservative leadership by exclusively appealing to so-cons, but
it's also difficult to win by alienating them. Andrew Scheer struck a
perfect balance and won by taking a sizable share from every faction.
To suggest that social conservatives are the only reason Scheer won
is stupid and factually incorrect. Not only does it exhibit complete
political illiteracy, it exhibits a complete failure in mathematical
logic.

The Math

Brad Trost defied all
predictions by coming in fourth and lasting more ballots than anyone
could have imagined. Pierre Lemieux, the other social conservative,
scored more than 7% of the vote on the first ballot and lasted more
rounds than Lisa Raitt. Combined, the social conservative vote on the
first ballot surpassed 15%.

The Liberal math goes
wrong when it attempts to say that the Conservative Party's trove of
social conservatives put Andrew Scheer over the edge. Of course they
ranked Andrew Scheer highly, but many of them didn't make Scheer
their first choice.

The fact is that by the
time Brad Trost's and Pierre Lemieux's numbers were factored in,
Andrew Scheer was still trailing Maxime Bernier by 2%. After all of
the proven social conservative votes were tallied, Maxime Bernier was
still in the lead.

Round 12:

Bernier 40%

Scheer 38%

O'Toole 21%

It's unlikely that the
Conservative Party's social conservative base grew more than its
libertarian base in this leadership race. Both Kevin O'Leary and
Maxime Bernier sold more memberships than all of the socially
conservative candidates combined. It might even be fair to say that
many of the party's newer and younger members are what gave Maxime
Bernier most of his 49%.

Those evil social
conservatives that both Bernier supporters and Liberals are trying to
blame were vastly out-numbered by moderate and progressive party
members, so how the heck did Maxime Bernier lose?

The Inevitable
Scheer Vote

A majority of the
Conservative Party's social conservative votes were destined to end
up going to Andrew Scheer in a ranked ballot. Anyone who thought
Maxime Bernier was going to get more than a tiny fraction of the
so-con vote shouldn't be advising any future Conservative campaigns.
Even though Bernier said he would allow Tory MPs to vote their
conscience and possibly re-open the abortion debate, he had no chance
of gaining the social conservative vote—especially after rallying
to redefine marriage at the 2016 convention and stacking his campaign
team with pro-choice libertarians and progressives. Had Bernier been
able to win more than a minuscule fraction of so-cons, he might have
won.

Most social
conservatives didn't rank Andrew Scheer as their first choice. Brad
Trost's campaign even went as far as instructing supporters to only
rank Brad Trost and no one else. This stems from a bizarre and
long-standing rivalry between Trost and Scheer.

Through the process of
elimination, social conservatives had only one choice left following
the elimination of Lemieux and Trost. Again, once the Trost and
Lemieux votes were reallocated, Andrew Scheer was still behind Maxime
Bernier in round 12. The party's libertarian, progressive and
moderate factions had mostly been dispersed and reallocated under
Bernier and O'Toole, but also under Scheer. After all of that,
Bernier managed to hold his lead.

Scheer wasn't the top
choice for social conservatives and the party's so-con base was no
more or less powerful this time than it was in the past. Scheer
appealed to moderates, libertarians and progressive Conservatives
alike. Unlike Bernier, he had a bigger tent that made social
conservatives feel more comfortable.

Without social
conservatives, the Conservative Party would lose perpetually. Like
all of the other facets in the party, so-cons are an essential piece
of the Conservative framework that need to be accepted and respected.
Andrew Scheer knows that. So-cons would have voted no matter what
and—without Scheer—they may have chosen someone far less
palatable to the general public.

Since we've determined
that social conservatives were vastly outnumbered and that Scheer
also grabbed a healthy portion of moderates, libertarians and
progressives, we're getting a bit closer to finding out why Andrew
Scheer won and Maxime Bernier didn't.

The O'Toole Split

Had Erin O'Toole's
votes split evenly down the middle, Maxime Bernier would have won. To
win, Andrew Scheer needed 55% or more of Erin O'Toole's votes—which
is what he got. Since Erin O'Toole wasn't a favourite among social
conservatives, it's fair to say that the so-cons were no longer a
major factor by the final ballot.

To be precise, about
60% of Erin O'Toole's votes went to Andrew Scheer. O'Toole finished
with 21% and—by the final ballot—Scheer had 50.95%. 13% is
roughly 60% of 21%, which is what Andrew Scheer gained from O'Toole's
votes. If Erin O'Toole wasn't a candidate, his votes would have put
Andrew Scheer ahead on earlier ballots.

The bottom line is that
Maxime Bernier had Andrew Scheer beat until the O'Toole votes were
counted. So what put Andrew Scheer over the edge?

Supply Management

For Maxime Bernier,
supply management was a double-edged sword. It was what made him a
warrior among libertarians and a hero among free-market
conservatives, but it was also what cost him the leadership. How do
we know?

No one rallied as hard
against Maxime Bernier's stance on supply management as Erin O'Toole.
Yes, pretty much every other candidate took jabs at Bernier's
position, but no one fought as hard to appeal to, or defend, the
rural voters who supported supply management. Much of O'Toole's late
surge in mid-April could even be attributed to the several Facebook
posts and campaign events that took pointed and direct shots at
Maxime Bernier's position. If you don't believe me, watch some
O'Toole campaign speeches from April and scroll through his Facebook
page.

A majority of the
Conservative caucus is in favour of supply management and no motion
to scrap supply management even made it to the table at the party's
2016 convention. The truth is that a slim majority of Conservative
members support supply management. Regardless of how we feel, those
are the facts. That slim majority refused to give Bernier the win.

The Status Quo

The first complaint
from Bernier supporters is one about keeping the Conservative Party's
status quo intact under Andrew Scheer. Bernier's supporters are
disappointed that their party didn't choose a dramatically new
direction that may have alienated segments of the party and that most
Canadians would have rejected.

Canada isn't an
inherently conservative or economically libertarian country and
Stephen Harper knew it. Andrew Scheer embraced his “Harper 2.0”
moniker because it worked. Stephen Harper kept conservatives united
and he knew what the general population would and wouldn't accept. By
electing Andrew Scheer, Conservatives chose to stay the course that
was set out by Stephen Harper and that's not terrible. Harper's
approach was slow, steady and painfully incremental at times—but it
worked. His government blew a lot of opportunities, but that's
something Andrew Scheer has hopefully learned from.

After all of it,
Harper's Conservatives only lost about 200,000 votes from 2011.
Through all of the media bias, fake scandals and Harper derangement,
the Conservative Party's base was still strong and stable in 2015. To
risk it all by changing course would be foolish.

Conservative Culture

The next step in
building conservatism in Canada involves building a conservative
culture. I wrote about this last month. Conservatives in Canada have
been paddling against the waves and climbing uphill against a liberal
culture. To make progress, Andrew Scheer will need to succeed in all
the ways Stephen Harper didn't.

Conservatives will have
to do better than four-year majorities. To slowly introduce Canadians
to fiscal conservatism, smaller government and conservative values,
we'll need a friendly face and time. The time can be bought by a
leader who fights the media bias, the Liberal attacks and the leftist
smears with a smile and a joke. Time will be bought by a leader who
presents conservative values positively without apologizing.

Stephen Harper was an
economic libertarian and a social conservative, just like Andrew
Scheer. His personal views never impeded his leadership, just as
Andrew Scheer's won't. Stephen Harper never opened the abortion
debate or took a stand against supply management because he knew it
would tear the party apart. Like Scheer will, Harper put aside his
personal views to slowly and painstakingly inject conservatism into
Canada's bloodstream. Harper chose unity and longevity over ideology.
Like Harper, Scheer understands that the Conservative Party is
Canada's last bastion of conservatism. Without it, conservatism
stands no chance.

If we choose to bicker
over ideology now, we'll lose later. If we choose to be patient and
let conservative values slowly take hold now, a person like Maxime
Bernier might win with ease in the future.